ORDER

What we say in this order shall not only cover the case of the first respondent but shall also regulate the system of recording annual confidential reports prevalent in the U.P. Jal Nigam - the first petitioner herein.

2. The first respondent was down graded at a certain point of time to which the Service Tribunal gave a correction. Before the High Court, the petitioners plea was that down grading entries in confidential reports cannot be termed as adverse entries so as to obligate the Nigam to communicate the same to the employee and attract a representation. This argument was turned down by the High Court, as in its view confidential reports, were assets of the employee, since they weigh to his advantage at the promotional and extensional stages of service. The High Court to justify its view has given an illustration that if an employee legitimately had earned an outstanding report in a particular year which, in a succeeding one, and without his knowledge, is reduced to the level of satisfactory without any communication to him, it would certainly be adverse and affect him at one or the other stage of his career.

3. We need to explain these observations of the High Court.